EU-UK Summit

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the EU-UK summit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, for a debate on such an important issue. Let me start with what I believe is a truism in British politics: we can learn a lot from Disney and the films of our childhood. In this debate, the words of Elsa from “Frozen” are particularly apposite for those people who are still obsessed with the debates of 2016 and 2019: it is time to let it go. I suspect that many Members across the House would agree with that, because 2016 was a long time ago, and time has moved on.

It was 2016 when President Trump was elected for the first time. It was the year that, sadly, David Bowie passed away. It really is that long ago. Russia was involved in a war in the Donbas, but no further. TikTok did not even exist—that was not until 2019, which is also now a very long time ago and was when we finally actually left the European Union with the deal struck under the trade and co-operation agreement. It was also, of course, the year of “Frozen II” and that famous song “Into the Unknown”, and it was the year that Greggs gave us a vegan sausage roll, Notre-Dame burned down, Boris Johnson was elected as Prime Minister and “Game of Thrones” finally finished—not the Conservative leadership challenges, but the television series.

My point is that so much has happened in our history since the tired old debates were first rehearsed. Let us not do that today, because we have left the European Union. I stand here as chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, seeking not to prosecute an argument to rejoin but to look at the summit and the deal that was struck on Monday. Frankly, I do not believe this country has time to engage in the discussion around rejoining. We need a salvage operation, and I see Monday’s deal as the start of that operation to salvage a future following the impact of Brexit.

Even if we disagree on that salvage operation, I hope we can convince the Minister that there needs to be more scrutiny of our relationship with Europe. We might disagree about the direction of travel, but we are bound together by a recognition that taking back control means that this place needs to have discussions about the deals and the opportunities and what they mean for our constituents. Perhaps, like Banquo’s ghost, the former Member for Stone still lives with us; but actually, we can all show today that were we to have European scrutiny formats in the House, it would be a positive and constructive contribution to the deal-making process.

That is what is on offer today: the opportunity to take us forward, not back. We can now see the impact of the Brexit deal on our constituents. Our constituents need us to ask questions about what will happen next—about the 1.8 million jobs that we are missing as a result of the deal that was struck, the stagnation in the growth of exports and the 16,000 businesses that gave up trading as a direct result of the “benefit” of Brexit, which was paperwork.

The EU is our biggest trading partner: it accounts for 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. In comparison, the US accounts for just 22% of our exports and 13% of our imports. Clearly, this is a fundamental relationship for the future of British business and British jobs. The summit on Monday was an opportunity not just to look at the trade and co-operation agreement—what was written into the very details of the deal, five years on—but to do something that the public want. Two thirds of the public tell us that Brexit has been detrimental to the cost of living, 65% say it has had a negative impact on our economy, 64% think it has been bad for British business, and 60% think that a closer relationship with Europe is in our interests.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know my views on Brexit—I represent a constituency in which 87% of people voted to remain and I represent 22,000 EU nationals, who are part of the fabric of our community—but I want to ask her about young people, who she will probably mention at some point. The statistics show that there has been a 30% drop in the number of schoolchildren going to Europe on school trips, and that disadvantaged areas have been hit the hardest—

[Tulip Siddiq]

The UK is not part of the list of travellers scheme, which is why it is so hard for schoolchildren to go on trips. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have better access to Europe, like we had when we were growing up?

[Ms Creasy]

As somebody who still remembers a powerful school trip to Ypres to look at the first world war sites, I know that the dramatic decline in school trips to Europe is harming our children’s education. I am sure the Minister will want to refer to that.

The public are living in the world we are in now, which is why they want us to look at the deal. They recognise that Europe now has the highest employment rate since 2005, whereas elsewhere the second-term Trump Administration have brought tariffs and turmoil, just 121 days in; Putin has now invaded Ukraine itself; there is a horrific conflict in the middle east; and China and Iran now figure in our national security concerns, too. And as ever, technology overruns us all. There are now 159 million TikTok users in Europe, and it is predicted that within three years some 15% of our day-to-day decisions will be made by artificial intelligence. All of us will probably become redundant; I shall leave it to Conservative Members to decide whether that is a good or bad thing. Everybody else has moved on. It is time that we in this House do, too.

In that spirit, let me fail to heed my own words and turn to perhaps one of the most damaging aspects of the Brexit debate. I welcome the Minister’s hard work and the deal that has been struck as a testament to the ambitions of the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the concept of cakeism. It is truly incredible to see that, far from it being impossible to be pro cake and pro eating it, the new bespoke deal delivers for the UK in many ways that many people had suggested were not possible.

I put on the record my support for the formal security and defence partnership, with the promise of exploring participation in a new defence fund while retaining our red line about not participating in the single market. I will, of course, take an intervention from any Conservative Member who wishes to apologise for the deliberate refusal of the previous Government to put anything about foreign policy or defence co-operation into the previous deal—a decision that has left us uniquely exposed.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

As the Government say, NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, and that is how we co-operate with our European partners on defence. EU defence is an add-on that has been in the minds and the ether of the EU since the Maastricht treaty, but it has never come to anything substantial.

[Ms Creasy]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to tell that to his constituents. Of course NATO is vital, but we are dealing with a new world. They see the aggression of President Putin and the need to stand up to address the situation in Gaza. They see the leadership being shown by our European colleagues and they wish us to be not playground generals, but grown-ups. That is exactly what the defence deal will mean.

I also welcome the proposals for co-operation on foreign aid, because that is crucial not only to tackling poverty around the world but to preventing conflict. Conflict is driving many to flee persecution, proving how aid is often our best defence against the small boats, rather than the bluster of some Conservative Members.

There has been a resolution to the risk of divergency in our carbon emissions trading schemes, which would have been a death knell for the British steel industry. Energy UK estimates that will mean around £800 million per year of payments going to our Treasury rather than to the EU. It is worth remembering that 75% of our steel exports, worth £3 billion, go to the European Union. Frankly, if we want to save British Steel, we need to save its market, which is what the resolution will do.

The talks will allow us to use e-gates at the borders. Queuing might be a national pastime, but it is not a national sport that any of us enjoy. There will be co-operation with Europol and data sharing on fingerprints, DNA and criminal records. Again, I suspect that in future years many of us will realise how criminal it was that that was not part of the original deal, which made it easier for the people who wish to do harm to our constituents to evade justice by crossing the border.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is going to apologise to the British public for such an oversight.

[Sir John Hayes]

Someone once said that the general rule in politics is never to apologise and never to explain, and I am certainly not going to break that rule now. The truth is that the hon. Lady is arguing for co-operation, and we all affirm that. Britain has co-operated with its neighbours, and with countries more widely, over the whole of our history. We began co-operating with Portugal under Edward III, as the Minister will no doubt confirm and speak about in some detail. It is not about co-operation; it is about governance. There is a fundamental difference between collaboration and co-operation, and government from abroad.

[Ms Creasy]

I am always pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman admit that he is in fact a rule taker, not a rule maker. It is noticeable that the co-operation that his Government did not pursue meant that we did not have access to EU databases such as Eurodac and the Schengen information system, which are critical to stopping cross-border crime and addressing illegal migration. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the fact that we have always co-operated; it was a conscious decision by the previous Government not to do so, and it is a conscious decision by this Government to address that to help to make us safer. Time and again, his Government rejected important security measures just because they had the word “Europe” in the title. This Government will not make that mistake.

All that is before we even get to the basics that I believe most of our constituents will be interested in, including the sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will see the removal of the vast majority of the paperwork and checks that were killing British food manufacturing and farmers, as well as causing inflation to costs here. Just the removal of export health certificates will save businesses up to £200 per consignment—a cost that was being passed on to our constituents. Again, I offer any Member who wants to defend the previous deal the opportunity to apologise to all those who work in logistics and have had to deal with Sevington, and the queues, delays and confusion about getting goods across the border.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that along with removal of the export health certificates, we are looking again at how we can remove the border operating model that the last Government brought in, which put further charges on top of the export health certificates and meant more delays in getting seeds to British farmers and flowers to market for our British businesses. All our constituents will welcome an SPS deal, because it is a way to tackle the extra £6.5 billion that we have had to spend on food and drink as a result of the charges, on top of other costs, because of Brexit.

Of course, we must talk about fish, because Britain’s fishing industry has indeed been battered by Brexit. Boris Johnson promised both prodigious amounts of fish to be caught and EU vessels out of our waters. He delivered neither—fishcakes, indeed. The new deal will start to address the damage done to our fishing industries. It is an honest and fair deal to secure no further loss of access and the restoration of a market for fish. The SPS deal will cut the Brexit red tape that has caused a 29% drop in fish exports to the EU since 2019. I am sure that Members read the words of Ian Perkes, a fish merchant from Brixham, who said that he had a catch worth £80,000 written off because of a dispute over the temperature it had been stored at, and another consignment rejected because the Latin name for Dover sole was spelled wrong.

The deal done by the previous Government would have expired next year. If we want the investment that the industry desperately needs, the stability of terms matters. With 80% of our catch exported—70% of that to the EU—the new deal offers a chance for that stable future for our fishing communities. It is the same with energy. The deal done by the previous Government would have expired next year. As the Prime Minister pointed out, we have been aligning in practice since we left the EU; we just have not had any say in what happens. We have aligned because the standards are high, and because asking businesses to follow two different sets of rules is a recipe for more regulation, not less. Anybody who doubts that needs to look at the record of the last Government.

I stand here as a red against red tape, welcoming the ruthlessness with which the Government have acted. The previous Government tried to introduce the UK charter mark, which they then admitted would cost British business billions of pounds to implement. They then promptly stated that if businesses had met EU standards, they had met British ones too. What a mess! The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is currently going through Parliament, and I am sure that the Minister will want to update us about what the deal will mean for the Bill and its terms of trade.

Conservative Members will decry the idea that we are rule takers. We were under them, but under this deal we will be consulted. We will have to abide by a dispute resolution system. Conservative Members act as if that is some new phenomenon—something we have never had as part of any other trade deal or, indeed, as part of their trade deal with the European Union. Thankfully, we can look to a non-mythical creature—but one that is certainly at risk—the puffin, to see what the reality might be, because last year the EU took the UK and Holyrood to court for banning sand eel fishing in the North sea and Scottish waters, as they wanted to protect that vital food source for the puffin. That is a noble aim that we can all get behind. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague had to decide whether the ban was a reasonable measure and, as a result, rule on our ability to determine fishing in our own seas. The courts upheld that decision to protect puffins and did so on the basis of the European Court of Justice—a process that the previous Government had signed up to already and that is part of the future negotiating deal.

Conservative Members talk of sovereignty as if it is some lump of plasticine that we can hand out, but the truth is that the new deal upholds our ability to make our case and to work with our neighbours within a reasonable framework. It is five years since we left, and we are still talking about and affected by the decisions that Europe makes. We are just not in the room where they are being made.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the things still not agreed is getting back into the Erasmus scheme. The Turing scheme, which was proposed instead, cut out youth groups, which has had a big effect in my constituency and around the country. Does my hon. Friend have any further information —I hope the Minister is listening—about the pace at which we might get back into the Erasmus scheme?

[Ms Creasy]

That is a fair and central question. I was coming to the point that we must ensure that our young people do not bear the brunt of the obsession with isolation at the expense of influence. That is why it is right to negotiate a youth mobility scheme and to look at Erasmus. I urge the Government to ensure that the scheme prioritises apprenticeships and training opportunities, so that future generations can benefit in the way that many previous ones did by taking a job in Spain or Germany, as well as going there to study.

Ultimately, this is just the start of the process—I am very aware that “Frozen III” is due to come to cinemas soon. There will be much more detail to work out, and I am sure that the Minister will give us a timeline for when decisions will be made and when we will get that detail.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Lady allow me to intervene?

[Ms Creasy]

I was about to conclude, but I will give way.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I want to correct the hon. Lady on a matter of fact. The dispute about sand eel fishing was resolved, under the trade and co-operation agreement, by a bilateral arbitration panel. It had nothing to do with the European Court of Justice. It is a normal trading agreement. There was no involvement of the Court of Justice of the European Union. [Interruption.]

[Ms Creasy]

I can only urge the Member to go and look at the basis for the decision-making arbitration panel. I can hear the Minister champing at the bit to correct him as well.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

She has misled the Chamber!

[Ms Creasy]

“Misled” is a very serious term, and I hope the Member will withdraw it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Would the hon. Lady like to correct the record, because what she said was incorrect? We can prove it afterwards, and she will have to correct the record afterwards if that is the case.

[Ms Creasy]

I refer to the point about the protection of The Hague and where The Hague takes its judgments from. Ultimately, the decisions were made in the Court of Arbitration. It relies on those rulings. That is part of the process. I suspect the fact that the Member has decried that speaks to the need for us all to have more time to scrutinise and do justice to this issue. I suspect that when he makes his speech, he will continue to make the argument that we do not want to work with the European Court of Justice. The truth is that his Government brought in mechanisms that used the European Court of Justice as part of their framework—[Interruption.]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. We must have just one person speaking at a time.

[Ms Creasy]

As the Minister says, the Windsor framework does as well. It shows where and how it works, and I think our constituents deserve the honesty of how the processes actually work and what the rulings are, rather than the fantasy. The puffins are very real; the puffery is not.

Finally, I have some questions I wish the Minister to address in his summing-up, because there are questions arising from the summit and the deal that has been struck. He will be aware that many of us have been championing membership of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, because that is also about the rules of origin paperwork, which has been so harmful to our supply chains. Could he give us an update on whether there is an opportunity for us to be part of that mechanism again, to help British businesses with all that paperwork?

We also need to understand whether any progress has been made on the mutual recognition of conformity assessments and qualifications. We know the latter is in there, but the agreement matters for both. Finally, can he say a bit more about what will happen to our financial services, which have not been mentioned yet but are the primary driver of growth in our economy?

The new deal will help our constituents finally clear the fog of Brexit: the excessive paperwork, the partnerships that have been damaged and the personal opportunities lost. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to use these summits to keep working on our relationship with our neighbours. It is an honest recognition that we can fight many things in life, but geography is not one of them. Our constituents have paid the price of a bad deal, as have many of us—some Opposition Members literally bankrolled the Brexit campaign. It is no wonder the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not with us today; if I were him, I would not want to be here to admit what a botched deal has been done.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend has helpfully laid out a list of issues for the Minister. I would add: what do we do about touring musicians? It has had a really big impact that people are unable to tour in Europe because of the cost of cabotage, visas and so on, as well as the time delays. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be pushing that issue as well?

[Ms Creasy]

I do. We may be making Elton John unhappy in the main Chamber, but I hope that in this Chamber the Minister can make him very happy with progress on touring musicians. We welcome the chance to work across the House to fix this through proper scrutiny, debate and discussion. The world is a very uncertain place right now, and our constituents will consider the new deal to offer hope for their future. As much as there is chaos and confusion, we can be crystal clear that both cake and change are possible.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they want to be called to speak, and that I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople just before 4 pm to allow Stella Creasy time to make a wind-up speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

And dependants, because the scheme is still open-ended. We do not know the age or number of people involved in the youth experience scheme, and we have no idea about its duration. I am hoping that I will still qualify at the age of 60.

[Ms Creasy]

I, too, share a burning desire to still be considered young—alas, I have to face the brutal reality. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has similar concerns about the 13 other youth mobility schemes that we have with countries around the world. Does he fear the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the Japanese and the Uruguayans who come on such schemes in the same way that he fears the Europeans? Or is it that he thinks the Europeans are younger and fitter than him?

[Richard Tice]

Well, the Europeans may well be younger and fitter than me, but the truth is that proximity makes a big difference to the concerns of my constituents. Boston has received a significant quantity of net immigration from eastern Europe, but it has not seen any Australians. There is a proximity issue, but surely it must be right that if the Government are going to agree a deal, they should agree the terms of the deal. We do not know the numbers, the cap or, really, the duration of the scheme—we know absolutely nothing. We are completely at the mercy of the European Union.

I invite any hon. Member to spend a day with me in sunny Skegness and knock on a thousand doors. I promise them that not a single person who answers the door will say, “I want a youth experience scheme for Johnny or Judy.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

The renewable energy industry is receiving subsidies of tens of billions of pounds, which are added to all our household bills. The wholesale cost of energy is between 30% and 35% of the total cost of energy, so all the rest is subsidies, policy costs, transmission costs and profit. If we scrap net stupid zero, we drive down prices. Instead, the deal will handcuff us for evermore to higher bills; it will not reduce bills in any way.

[Ms Creasy]

As a proud member of the Community trade union, and on behalf of all the other trade unions who represent those who work in the steel industry, including many in the Scunthorpe steelworks, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what he will say to them when they are campaigning for the deal. They recognise that, as I said, 75% of our steel exports go to the EU. If he cuts off their access to the EU market by making them pay an additional subsidy, he will kill the British steel industry. Does he have any words of comfort for them about where their jobs will go?

[Richard Tice]

The hon. Lady may have forgotten that it was thanks to our intervention that British Steel and the blast furnaces have been saved. We stood there six years ago, and I said, “Don’t sell British Steel to the Chinese,” but the Conservative Government ignored our advice. British Steel has consistently said to me over the last six years that the cost of energy drives up the price of steel. That is why the quantity of steel that we have produced in this country in the last decade has plummeted—because of our high energy costs due to the ever increasing cost of renewable energy.

The key problem is the cost of energy, which has driven down the production of steel by about half in the last decade. That is why British Steel is so cross about the cost of energy. We have an opportunity to manufacture and sell more steel internally, in the UK, but the tragedy is that the Ministry of Defence, for example, does not use either of our key steel producers—Tata Steel or British Steel—as a critical supplier, which it should do. Why does it not do that? Because those producers are uncompetitive. Why? Because of the cost of energy in our domestic market. The fifth surrender is the EU emissions trading scheme, which will be a serious handicap and handcuff over the next few years.

The sixth surrender is on the use of passport e-gates. I know it caused some interest, but the reality is that, once again, nothing has been agreed. It is supposedly the great benefit, yet it turns out that it is not agreed. We have no idea when it might commence; it might be this year or next year. It also turns out that no country is obligated to sign up to our supposed access through the e-gates—no, it will be a voluntary process. Actually, we have not agreed the benefit that we have all been told is the deal’s greatest opportunity.

In other words, once again, little has been agreed and everything has been conceded. Interestingly, even before the deal, nations such as Portugal already allowed us through e-gates. We already have the opportunity that is supposedly the great benefit of this deal, so why do the deal in the first place?

The deal has been done, despite all of these great surrenders, because we have a Prime Minister who did not want us to leave the EU. More than that, he did not want to trust democracy; he wanted to do it again by having a second referendum. One week, he says that he wants freedom of movement and more immigration, and the next week, he says he wants less immigration. It is hard to keep up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Sorry—I was told you had finished, Sir John.

[Ms Creasy]

Sir John was just getting started!

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Well, none of us would want to deny ourselves the chance to listen to Sir John. Back to you.

[Sir John Hayes]

I wondered whether the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) was going to finish my speech for me, Mr Vickers, but I am not sure it would have been quite in the same vein as that in which I intend to continue.

We have talked a bit about the youth mobility scheme, or the youth movement scheme or the youth experience scheme—call it what you will. Of course, it is true that some young people want to go abroad, but many more young people from abroad will want to come here, and we spoke a little before you came, Mr Vickers, about the consequences of that.

Things have changed since we left the European Union. The principal change internationally has been the greater need for national economic resilience, epitomised in the covid pandemic and then the European war in Ukraine that followed. Never has it been clearer that Britain needs to become increasingly resilient, and that means protecting our industries to some degree. It certainly means manufacturing more of what we need and growing more of the food that we consume in this country. Shortening supply lines will have many benefits, environmental and other but, fundamentally, it is about taking a national view of our economic interests.

Of course Britain co-operates and collaborates with others; but, as I said to the hon. Member for Walthamstow when she opened the debate, there is a world of difference between co-operation and governance. In a sense, that has permeated considerations of this subject since we started them back in the late 1950s. For a long time, many of those who favoured European governance pretended that it was a matter of logistics rather than principles, of details rather than essentials and, as we heard again in this debate, of co-operation rather than governance. Fundamentally, however, it is about the difference between supranational Government and collaborative measures—treaties and so on—between sovereign nations. That is at the heart of this debate.

It is unfortunate that when we joined the European Union—as you will remember, Mr Vickers, because you were a campaigner against it even in those distant days—it was labelled the Common Market. There was no sense there that we would be giving up our sovereignty—no sense that it would have any effect on our political structure or system of Government. It was just a trading association.

How things have changed. I know the hon. Member for Walthamstow welcomes that change, because she fought the Brexit referendum result in an honourable, but none the less stubborn way, if I might say so. I wonder whether she is as stubborn now.

[Ms Creasy]

It is always flattering when people talk about imitation. The right hon. Gentleman’s argument was about the difference between co-operation and governance. What is it about Europol and our ability to share information and work together to tackle crime and hold to account those who harm our constituents that he finds distasteful enough that to support not working with Europol? His Government chose, on his argument, not to work with Europol. I believe that that has damaged our ability to tackle crime, and this summit will address that. What was so distasteful about that body that he could not co-operate with it?

[Sir John Hayes]

I say to the hon. Lady—not in a way that is patronising or pompous at all—that I can speak with a bit more authority about that than she can, because I am a former security Minister, currently a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I was once responsible for countering serious organised crime in Government, so I came across a lot of the need to co-operate and share data.

The hon. Lady will remember that we were never part of the Schengen arrangement, although we did have access to the Schengen database. We were never part of European governance over security, although we did share information with European partners. She will also know that the key security relationship for us is the Five Eyes relationship with countries beyond the European Union—America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That is the core security partnership but, of course, we co-operate with other countries across the globe. To be frank, that is not really about governance, is it? That is about exactly the kind of collaboration that, as I described, has always been part of the way that this country has dealt with its affairs internationally. [Interruption.] I am not going to take another intervention because I know that even you, Mr Vickers, are beginning to tire—even of me.

I will therefore move rapidly to my concluding remarks, which concern this issue of trade and regulation. It is undoubtedly true that, in my constituency—I think a Member who is no longer in their place asked me to offer a balanced view of this—exporters in the horticultural sector will benefit from smoother transitions at ports. However, it is also true that there is a risk that that will encourage us to import more food at a time when we need to export less. We need to grow, make and consume more of our own food. Yesterday I was at a meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on the UK fresh produce network, which I chair, and a major haulier, farmer and grower said that he feared that that was the problem with this deal. I meet farmers, growers and hauliers in my constituency every single week, such is my diligence, and they are most concerned about the possible impact of that additional ability of the Europeans to flood our markets with foreign food.

I will end with this: Joe Chamberlain also said that we should

“carry on even to distant ages the glorious traditions of the British flag.”

In the end, this is about just that. It is about how one sees the nationhood, and how one regards the national interest. There are those on the left—although I do not say that they are in this Chamber—who are affected by doubt about nationhood, and some even afflicted by guilt about our past who do not see the national interest in the way I do. I do not think that that includes the Minister, by the way, as we will no doubt hear when he speaks. But in the end, we do have to come to the logical conclusion of Brexit and all that has happened since: the national interest ought to be the supreme consideration of any Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

As has been said already, there is increased access for British goods into the European markets. I will come on to some others.

[Ms Creasy]

There needs to be some cold hard reality about this situation. The previous Government seemed to be suggesting some kind of cod war where our Navy might have been deployed to maintain the idea that nobody else could fish. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the benefits of the deal that has been struck now is around removing the barriers to selling the fish that we catch? The reason why there has been such a fall—of a third in the exports of fish from the United Kingdom—is the market that there is for our fishery. Our fishing communities face many challenges, not least the myths of the last Government, and we need to give them a market. This deal will do that.

[Sam Rushworth]

That is 100% correct. I do not think that there is any Member in this place who has not met businesses in their constituency that previously exported to Europe and heard the tales of woe as a result of the deal that the previous Government negotiated. That is why so many people are lining up to say that the deal represents a good deal for them. When my constituents voted for Brexit, they voted for two things: to be better off and to control immigration. I do not like the word “betrayal”, which has been bandied around in this debate, but in the last five years we have seen a betrayal of the promise that was made to them.

In 2010—the year that the Conservatives took office—annual asylum claims were just 18,000; barely anybody arrived in the UK by a small boat. That remained relatively constant up until Brexit—so, what happened? First, because they told people that co-operation with our friends in Europe was the problem, they pulled Britain out of the Dublin agreement, meaning that we could no longer return people to the first country where they claimed asylum. Do not take my word for it; let us hear what the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), was found to have said in a recording leaked this week:

“Because we’re out of the European Union now, we are out of the Dublin III regulations, and so we can’t any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum. When we did check it out, just before we exited the EU transitional arrangements…we did run some checks and found that about half the people crossing the Channel had claimed asylum previously elsewhere in Europe…and therefore could have been returned.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

I am sure the Minister will answer that point in his summing up, but it is my understanding that we do not have access to facial recognition technology, which is really important to help us to better police our borders. This is the simple reality: the Brexit that we were promised did not do the things that people promised it would do. That is why we need a reset in relations.

[Ms Creasy]

I wonder what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) might say to apologise to my constituent, who has now been waiting, I believe, for over 12 years for justice to be done in the case of her son’s murder in Greece, and for those responsible to be extradited. The abolition of the European arrest warrant under Brexit has made that harder, which is a real example of the damage done by the previous Government’s approach to crime and security.

[Sir John Hayes]

indicated dissent.

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Member is shaking his head. I invite him to meet Sharon Matthews—she is an extraordinary woman who has fought for justice for her son, Tyrell. Brexit has made that harder.

[Sam Rushworth]

It is so obvious that improved co-operation with all the countries just 20 miles off our shore can benefit our security and trade. That is what the reset is seeking to do. It is not dragging us back into Europe—I think that is nonsense, and I am not hearing any credible person say that.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) says that he holidays in north Norfolk, and I will be joining him there this summer—[Interruption.] Not personally, I hasten to add; I mean that my family will be there this summer too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

My right hon. Friend is clearly right, and the national interest cannot be served by a dynamic alignment that effectively requires us to automatically take on other people’s rules. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister either could not or would not tell us what measures would be open to the EU in the event that Parliament chose not to adopt a new EU law under paragraph 27 of the common understanding. Can the Minister do better? Would remedial action be restricted to suspending parts of this agreement, or could it result in a broader trade dispute?

Labour fought Brexit at every turn over the last nine years. The Prime Minister backed a second referendum; he stood on platforms calling for us to stay in the EU, and demanded we entered into a customs union that would have made the trade deals reached since Brexit impossible. Now he says that he wants to make Brexit work, but his version of making Brexit work is about dragging Britain backwards.

This deal is not about fixing Brexit; it is about reversing it and undermining it. Let us be absolutely clear: this deal resubmits the UK to foreign courts, foreign laws and foreign control. We will pay into EU budgets, follow EU rules and even have our food standards determined by Brussels. We will be paying into EU schemes with no say on how those funds are spent, and taking EU laws with no say over what they are—the worst of both worlds. No vote. No veto. No voice. Taxation without representation. The Prime Minister complains—[Interruption.] Sorry, is the hon. Member for Walthamstow trying to intervene?

[Ms Creasy]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. We have talked about the puffin case; the previous Government, which fought the puffin case, relied on European law in making their argument, and cited it in their own submissions. It was good enough for the previous Government to look at European law and at questions about proportionality, as they did in their submission. The idea that moving to an independent arbitration system, which is what this summit will do, is somehow surrender is misplaced.

[Mike Wood]

No, I think the hon. Lady misses the point completely. When we are being taken to an international court by an institution such as the European Union, it is a perfectly sensible and effective legal strategy to cite its own rules as evidence that we have not broken either its rule or the international rule that it is citing.

Now, the Prime Minister complains about us doing exactly what we were elected to do—holding this Government to account and calling out where they are getting things wrong. On this, the Government are getting things wrong, and we will not make any apology for doing our duty, which is to oppose these concessions, to honour the will of voters and to retain our sovereignty. It is time to stand firm for the integrity of our democracy and for the ability of our sovereign Parliament to make decisions in the interests of our great nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

Thank you, Mr Vickers, and Ms McVey for your able chairing of this afternoon’s debate.

I am probably going to show my age and why I am definitely not available for a youth exchange scheme, not by quoting Disney but by making an older reference. Dan Quayle’s words about surrender spring to mind when I hear the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and other Opposition Members talk about Brexit. He said:

“My friends, no matter how rough the road may be, we can and we will, never, never surrender to what is right.”

Dan Quayle’s method of surrender is the approach of Reform and the Opposition making.

Today’s debate has shown why we need a salvage and not a rejoin operation, given the impact of Brexit. We now hear Opposition parties opposing any co-operation at all—moving the goalposts. I am old enough and have been in this place long enough to remember when Opposition Members used to push for some kind of Swiss-style deal. They wanted some form of co-operation; now they seem to want no deal at all. They want to ignore the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, which criticised the impact on Brexit deal shellfish markets. They want to ignore not just the supermarkets—a bad form of reference according to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin)—but the British International Freight Association. I the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness to go and speak to the association, which talks about that deal as eliciting “a sigh of relief” regarding the practical changes for its members.

I understand that we are now no longer to go to Spain, France or even Italy on holiday—only Norfolk. Let me reassure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) that I will be in Norfolk this summer, but I do not want to deny my constituents the ability to travel all because of the right hon. Gentleman’s obsession with isolation. I do not think we will see no French people go to Skegness. I am sure that if they did come, they would get a very warm welcome. I certainly do not think we want the Henry Ford-approach to arbitration, which says, “Our way or no way at all.” This debate has shown the value of a debate on this issue. I hope that the Minister will take back if not the ideas, then the idea that we can talk about these issues in this place once again.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and the Minister.

[Danny Kruger]

Does the hon. Lady share my regret that the Minister did not recommit the Government to introducing the Scrutiny Committee? Does she agree that we should continue to work to that end?

[Ms Creasy]

Yes, I do, and I know the Minister knows that. It is healthy for us to have these debates and I hope that we can continue to have them.

As I said, I am concerned and interested to see the future possibility of joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention and tackling the rules of origin paperwork. Mutual conformity will be an issue. I know there are more concerns about security and defence. This is such a big issue with such a potential impact on our future. The deal that the Minister has done this week shows that, because of the benefits it will bring. It is right that this place has that debate so that we can move on from Opposition Members appearing like Prince Hans and wanting to take us back to Weselton, rather than thinking about the future that we could offer to everybody.

I finish by again urging Opposition Members to let it go. “Frozen III” will offer us many new opportunities to revisit Olaf’s story and to see what happens to Anna and Elsa. Of course, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire will know that Anna saves Elsa through love. Let me offer some love, so as not to go back into the castle, but to move forward together, because things really will look good when we are older.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the EU-UK summit.

UK-EU Summit

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the Conservatives need any help in retiring from the national stage—they are well on their way. It is obviously important that we take a balanced approach in negotiating access to Erasmus. As with other aspects, we want to move ahead on what we have negotiated as quickly as we can. We have moved at speed to get this far, and the instruction from both sides is to move at speed on the other elements.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when she says that what matters is whether the terms of the deal have improved for the country, and that detail matters. Some 16,000 firms in this country stopped exporting to Europe under the deal that her Government negotiated and exports dropped by a third, because the price of her Brexit was paperwork. Under this deal, the Government are getting rid of the much-hated export health certificate, which is worth an extra £200 on every single consignment. This Government’s deal will help business; her Government’s deal hurt business. Can the Prime Minister confirm that as part of reviewing the charges at the border, he will also look at that the Tories’ hated border operating model, so we can really get business moving?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on it. Under the Tories’ deal, there was huge bureaucracy, huge red tape, huge cost to businesses. The reason businesses have come out to support this deal in huge numbers is because they know it will make life better for them, improve their business opportunities, and drive our economy forward.

UK-EU Summit

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

It is freedom of movement for young people, is it not? What we are asking for today is for the Labour party to set out what its clear position is. In a moment, I will explain why that is very important.

The fact is that up until this point, we have seen chaos in these negotiations. That will be easy for the Labour party to understand, because on 24 February, we heard the Home Secretary rule out a youth mobility deal—the Government were not going to do it and were not looking into it. At the beginning of March, though, the Postmaster General suggested in a Westminster Hall debate that he was open to such a deal, but then on 24 April, the Postmaster General ruled it out again. [Interruption.] I mean the Paymaster General—would the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) like to be Postmaster General? Okay, Paymaster General it is. He ruled it out on 24 April, but then at the beginning of May, he once again ruled it in.

This does not end with the youth mobility scheme. On 23 January, Labour Ministers ruled out joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean area. Three days later, the Chancellor said that the Government were looking at it, and then on 3 February, the Government ruled it out again. The Government do not know what they are doing; they do not know what they want to achieve, have no objectives, and have very blurred red lines. There is an emerging sense that this will be a good deal—a good deal for the EU, in which the balance of benefits will run against the UK. Despite the fact that the Government do not wish to give a running commentary —they are content to give a running commentary to the press—it seems that the EU’s demands are being met in this negotiation, but because the UK has no demands, its demands cannot be met.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to “Quantum Leap”. The point about Sam Beckett is that he kept leaping back into the past, because he could not cope with the future—that does seem rather apposite. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with many Labour Members that one of the important things about next Monday is that we will be able to move forward on the security and defence partnership. Given the threat posed by President Putin, can the hon. Gentleman put aside his blindness to the benefits to this country of co-operating with Europe and at least agree that that partnership would be a good thing to secure?

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad to be the one to break it to the hon. Lady that we already co-operate with Europe on defence, and have done so for a very long time. She will know that the cornerstone of our defence is—and always has been, since the second world war—NATO. Now is an apt moment to remember that, because today is the 85th anniversary of the first speech that Sir Winston Churchill made as Prime Minister, given from that Dispatch Box, or, rather, from the Dispatch Box that was there before the Chamber was bombed. It was his “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech.

It is obviously incredibly important that we co-operate with our European partners on defence, but that is why we do. We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence—and the Opposition would like to spend 3%, and more—largely to help defend Europe, and we know of no reason, because the Government have not given one, why NATO is insufficient for that task.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I start with a warning to my colleagues elected in 2024? Many of us who were here between 2017 and 2019 have been deeply triggered by this debate, which has rerun and rehashed the debates of old. We have the scars on all our backs. I warn hon. Members: do not go down that rabbit hole. No good can come of it. [Interruption.] I wager that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is laughing because he knows how much—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

Well, of course I have to give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. If she wants to deliberately not go down that rabbit hole, she should be talking to the Government Front Benchers.

[Ms Creasy]

And lo, Bugs Bunny did appear. We have also heard from the man I started arguing with 33 years ago as a young campaigner about the merits or otherwise of working with Europe. It appears that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) was on the other bus in the debates about Brexit. That is exactly it: our constituents, who might listen to this, would be horrified to see us going backwards again, acting as if the last 10 years had not happened and there was no evidence about what Brexit means.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have had to sit through many a lengthy speech.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

Oh, go on—I will give way. The hon. Gentleman was like this when I was 15, too.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Who is it that is trying to take us back to the past? It is the Government. Brexit is giving this country its new future and the Government are trying to turn the clock back. That is what is wrong.

[Ms Creasy]

I hate to warn the hon. Gentleman, but I have a horrible feeling that if he were to compare the speech he made today with many of those he made between 2017 and 2019, he might find that he would lose “Just a Minute” on the grounds of repetition. That is going backwards. This country deserves better.

Let me start with a clear statement of intent. Brexit has happened; we have left. I am not here to prosecute the argument to rejoin. We do not have time for that. What we need is a salvage operation, because of the damage that has been done, especially in a world with so much uncertainty, where tariffs are now part and parcel of the everyday conversation and the damage that is being done to our constituents.

We can fight many things in life, but geography really is not one of them, however hard some Members on the Conservative Benches try. We heard from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) the continued myth that somehow the isolation to our status that Brexit has brought would bring us strength. The last 10 years—indeed, the last six months—have shown how clearly that is not the case. In fact, we are uniquely isolated and at risk as a nation. That is why what this Government are doing is absolutely right. They are getting on with signing trade deals, trying to sort out the damage that has been done and, indeed, looking for that hat-trick.

I have to say to Conservative Members that there is no conspiracy here. Those of us who were here in 2019 remember exactly the details of that deal and the fact that a five-year review process was written into it. What we are going to see next Monday is not some secret negotiation; it is part of the trade and co-operation process—[Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members chuntering. Hang on, I can see their tin foil hats! I beg them to look at the details of the agreement, which said clearly that there would be a renegotiation point, where we would review whether or not it was working. I am sorry that the shadow Minister is not in his place. He tried to claim affinity with Sam Beckett but frankly I suspect he is going to be more like Jim Trott from “The Vicar of Dibley”. He will say, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no”, and then have to say yes. The summit is not the end. It is the start of the process of reviewing the trade and co-operation agreement, and looking at what is in the best interests of this country.

Let me be clear: I am absolutely committed to the idea that there should be parliamentary scrutiny. My colleagues on the Front Bench will know that I have been concerned that the European Scrutiny Committee was deleted, because I think we should be able to discuss these matters. However, I think there probably ought to be a summit first in order for us to have something to discuss. I hope that will account for me putting in an advert for the Backbench Business debate that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I were going to have after the summit on 22 May, so that we parliamentarians may properly examine what comes out of it. Sadly, he is not in his place, which is a shame because I know how strongly he feels about these things, and I am sure he would want to talk about the benefits of Brexit and other mythical creatures. The summit is the starting gun. It is not the final deal, and it is really important to look at it in that way.

This is the test for the motion today. Are the Opposition really telling us that the trade and co-operation agreement is perfection? Is there absolutely nothing in that agreement that they would not wish to amend, revise or refine? Is there absolutely nothing in what it has delivered in the last five years that they are troubled by? For example, there are 1.8 million fewer jobs in our economy because of the Tory hard Brexit, and the academics who have studied this recognise that that figure will rise to 3 million by 2035. Trade is down 27% with the European Union—a bloc that we do five times more trade with than we do with America. Over 16,000 businesses have given up trading with Europe all together, because the truth about Brexit is that it was just paperwork—reams and reams of it—and small businesses in this country have sadly had to up sticks.

I declare an interest as the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe. I am not standing here arguing to rejoin, but I am a red against red tape and what I see is the amount of paperwork—[Interruption.] I am loving the fact that Conservative Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, as if this was some sort of revelation. Perhaps they can borrow some tin foil from their fellow Members and talk about a conspiracy. They would do better to reflect on the impact of the border trading operating model—an entirely self-inflicted wound by the previous Government on British farmers and British food supply chains that pushed up inflation, because charging for pallets of food coming into the country created more and more paperwork. Unless Conservative Members are genuinely telling us that they think “chef’s kiss” for the trade and co-operation agreement, it is right for us to look at whether there are things we can do to deal with the problems it has created for our constituents—including the £6.95 billion of additional cost to households—and to account for some of the myths that have been created.

Again, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—he will accuse me of being obsessed, but let us look at what he talked about—said that somehow being out of the European Union made our response to covid better. Well, he might want to talk to the UK covid inquiry, which found that it was the reverse. It found that our failure to prepare was increased by the fact that we were dealing with a no-deal Brexit; it harmed our covid response. He might even want to reflect on the words of the UK medicines regulator, which said we could have used the emergency processes to bring forward our own vaccine. I am sure that is what he was talking about.

The hon. Member also talked about Ukraine. He might want to reflect, as he thinks about the summit on Monday, on how hard it was for us to make the case about the importance of standing with Ukraine from outside of the room, and that those who were less convinced who were part of the European Union would have heard our message more clearly if we were inside the room, particularly when it came to gas imports. We championed Ukraine, but we had to shout from outside rather than being part of the conversations from the start.

This summit needs a strong agenda, and that is exactly what this Government are talking about. It is an agenda focused on fixing the problems that this trade and co-operation agreement has created. That is what the public want—they agree with us. They do not want us to spend five to 10 years on treaty renegotiation and the possibility of rejoining; they want us to salvage this country from the damage that Brexit has done. Two thirds of the country say that Brexit is bad for the cost of living, and 65% say that it has had a negative impact on the economy. Opposition Members might want to reflect on the fact that that is nearly twice the number of people who think that immigration is bad for our economy.

The British public are not daft; they are wise about what needs to happen next. They understand the value of a defence deal. They understand that, in a world with Putin at our doorstep, with the challenges we face and the uncertainty in other parts of the world, it is absolutely right and proper, and will complement NATO, to work more closely with our European counterparts, to increase investment in the UK defence industry and to collaborate on crime. Those of us who used to have constituents whose needs were served by the EU arrest warrants know the damage that the previous Government’s deal has done. Those of us who want to see us stepping up the way we collaborate on international aid know that we need to get round the table with our European counterparts. The best way to tackle those who might be stuck on a boat, fleeing persecution, is to try to stop the conflict at the source. That is what collaborating on international aid with Europe could offer.

The public understand the value of an SPS deal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) mentioned, and the value of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, which deals with the paperwork about rules of origin. Thanks to the Tory hard Brexit, those rules mean that every time a tomato is brought into this country to make a pizza in the Wirral, extra paperwork comes with it. The public would want us to look at the VAT rules, because small businesses are now struggling with 27 different VAT regimes. They would also want us to sort out the carbon border adjustment mechanism; that is how we save British steel, which will be affected if there is a divergence. We need to look at how the emissions trading schemes can be linked, and we can save British business £800 million in charges.

The public want us to look at mutual conformity assessments to try to reduce duplication. They want common sense on regulation. The previous Government tried to bring in separate regulatory regimes and, understandably, British business said, “That is twice the cost.” British businesses want to be able to sell to their neighbours; they do not want extra pieces of paperwork. The previous Government tried to make us have separate regulations on airline safety—as if an aeroplane taking off in London would need to follow a different set of regimes if it landed in Berlin. That is bonkers. Understandably, we walked back from it, and we should not go back to those kind of arguments just because those on the Conservative Benches have a blindness when it comes to Europe.

This Government have got their head on. They are looking at what they can do to help the chemicals industry and supply chains, and of course it is looking at what a deal on youth mobility might look like. This is a summit; it is about having the conversation, looking at the details and looking at how we can support apprenticeships through youth mobility. Clearly, youth mobility is not freedom of movement, otherwise I would have heard complaints from Opposition Members about the fact that we have freedom of movement deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Uruguay—[Interruption.] I can see a Conservative Member saying, “Yes, indeed.” I presume they are going to call for the abolition of freedom of movement from Canada, then; that would be consistency.

We could also do more to help our creative services and financial services, and, yes, to resolve some of the tensions in Northern Ireland. Many of us feel deeply that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered the most as a result of the Tory hard Brexit. Yes, we could do a deal on fishing. We could acknowledge the fact that our fisheries industry felt sold out by the previous Government by supporting them to be sustainable. All those are issues that we can return to in that Back-Bench debate, but we cannot do that if we do not have the summit. We cannot walk into the summit saying, “No, no, no.” We need to walk in saying, “What gives? What are the opportunities here? How can we solve some of these challenges?”

Many, many years ago, one of my next-door constituency neighbours was Winston Churchill. We on the Labour Benches have become the defenders of his vision of ending conflict in Europe. Conservative Members spend all their time fighting with each other and fighting a ghost. We need to talk about the future. We need to get away from the fantasy that somehow Brexit will deliver and start getting back to the cost of living crisis in our communities and how we can help people.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

I was going to sit down, I promise, but I cannot resist. I give way.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady mentioned Churchill, so I cannot let her sit down yet. She talked about conflict within the Conservative party. Winston Churchill had a few battles in his own party, as she might recall—he was not averse to that. Sometimes one has to stand up for what is right, which is what Conservative Brexiteers did. Does she really think that Winston Churchill would have supported the EU in its current form? Does she really think that he would have supported what the ECHR has become? How can she possibly claim Winston Churchill for the politics that she stands for? Go on!

[Ms Creasy]

I think Winston Churchill would turn in his grave if he saw what the Conservative party and its libertarian wing have become, and how the proud defence of our ability to participate in international organisations, and to speak up for freedom, for shared interests and for the national interest, have been diminished as a result of the previous Government’s approach to Brexit, as well as that of Conservative Members today.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The world is changing. We are living in a world in which trade, security, co-operation and climate issues move at pace. Many of us could not have predicted—remember, it has been only 120 days since President Trump was elected—what would happen next. Never more have we needed good relationships with our neighbours. Monday is about being good neighbours. The world might be changing, but we have the same old Conservative party, on the same page as Reform—that is all they seem to care about. We care about the British interest. I look forward to hearing what comes out of the summit, and I look forward to the Back-Bench debate to discuss it. That really is taking back control.

EU Trading Relationship

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and to be part of today’s debate.

It is less than 100 days since Donald Trump entered the White House, and in those 100 days, I hope we have finally seen an end to the myth that leaving the European Union and isolating ourselves would somehow increase our sovereignty. We are now uniquely exposed to world events, whether it is tariffs, the actions of President Putin, or our ability to exercise influence in relation to the concerns we might have regarding Israel and Palestine. The public are paying the price, and they deserve better from all of us. Let us be frank: blue passports are no substitute for British jobs.

However, I come to Westminster Hall today not to say, “I told you so,” but to play my part in fixing the problem. In the short time available to me, I want to say that, while the MPs may be getting younger, too often in this place, the debates are old. I reassure the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), that although I may be the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe—I declare that interest—I do not come here to campaign for rejoin. We have left the European Union. Instead, I come to campaign for my constituents and people across this country who need the jobs and growth that a reset with Europe will offer, moving on from the red lines of the old debates to look at what is in our mutual interest and the summit that is ahead of us on 19 May.

I agree with many of the points that colleagues have made, so let me try to offer two further points. Particularly given that President von der Leyen is here today and has talked about the importance of us working together on regulation, I want to talk about the energy summit, and in particular about addressing the carbon border adjustment mechanism—I agree very much with the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), about that. UK exporters of energy, including our electricity industry, our steel industry, our ceramics industry and more, will pay the price if we do not tackle the impact of having a different emissions trading scheme.

We also have to tackle all the paperwork—we in the Labour Movement for Europe are the reds against the red tape—so yes, we need to deal with the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. We also need to deal with SPS and with the VAT differences that people are facing. Farmers, the chemical industry, the border target operating model and car industries will all benefit if we tackle those things; and of course, we need a visa system. We do not have time to talk about rejoin—it would take too long—but we can do something about the 17,000 businesses that have stopped trading with Europe. If we do that, we will bring back the British jobs and the British growth that we so desperately need. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

European Union: UK Membership

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting out the nature of this debate so well.

May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) that many of us who were here during the Brexit negotiations and remember the pain of those evenings—as well as the fisticuffs—know only too well that the scars cut deep? That is also why Robert, who I congratulate on his petition, needs to know the truth. If the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was in the country, I am sure that he would be telling all of us that we need straight talking, so let us have some straight talking.

Brexit is a disaster. It is a disaster by anybody’s metric, not least those according to whom it was purported to be a route to the promised land. The pandemic spared some of the blushes of those who still try to claim that we have got some elusive sovereignty as a result of leaving the European Union, but we can see the damage. Our constituents can see the damage.

Many Members have already cited some of the relevant figures; let me cite some more. As a result of Brexit, 1.8 million fewer jobs have been created in our economy, and that number is likely to rise to 3 million by 2035. Some 16,500 small businesses have stopped exporting to Europe all together. Those of us who were part of the parliamentary delegation last week had the pleasure of listening to Lord Frost trying to argue that up was down, but we know the truth for our constituents. We have seen the damage.

Indeed, we have seen that what was a bad situation in leaving the European Union was compounded by the ways in which the previous Administration chose to leave it. What on earth made them decide that we would not even share security alerts with our colleagues in Europe? How on earth is it in the interests of British farmers to not even share food security alerts with our colleagues, simply because the system had the word “Europe” in the title? The border operating model is adding billions of pounds to the cost of food in this country. What on earth made them think that adding £145 every time that a pallet of food came over here was somehow in the interests of British consumers or indeed British businesses? And that is before we even get on to the uncertain geopolitical situation that we are in. By any metric, it is easy to understand why Robert brought forward the petition.

To me, the Brexiteers are like those people—we all have met them on a night out—who join the group, start a fight in the club and get everyone kicked out, but who still maintain, three hours later, as they are walking everyone around a completely empty industrial estate somewhere, that they know a great club that everyone can get into. The challenge for those of us who recognise the damage done to this country—the damage to our national reputation and to our economies, communities and values from the idea that our European neighbours and friends would feel in any way unwelcome—is that we do not want to be that weirdo who says, “Well, if we walk around the streets a few more times, we can go back. It’s fine: the bouncers won’t recognise us; we can walk back in.” The brutal reality is that we have left the European Union, and we owe it to people who care about this country—I think everybody in this Chamber does, even if they still purport to believe that Brexit was a good idea—to talk truths to our constituents and work out what we can do to salvage what is left. That is what today’s debate is all about.

Nobody here is saying that rejoining should be the sole priority of the Government. We know full well that, because we are facing a salvage operation, Europe will only talk to us once more. Who can blame them? For years, we were like that difficult, awkward man our aunt married, who turned up at Christmas and always caused a fuss—and thank God she divorced him. Now we appear acting as if nothing has changed and that we should be invited to Sunday lunch. We owe respect to our colleagues in Europe when they are dealing with challenges such as Putin and economic uncertainty, and looking at what we can all do to secure peace in the middle east. They are owed some respect from us, and although sometimes it appears, frankly, as if we think our colleagues in Europe do not read our newspapers, I promise that they do.

The challenge for all of us is that we owe truth to our colleagues in Europe and truth to our constituents. It would take years to renegotiate to rejoin the European Union, even if we were to get a fast-tracked arrangement and they could be confident that we would not change our mind again. I recognise that the public are far ahead of politicians in this debate, including all of us scarred by those Brexit years. It would take years, because it would mean going around every individual country. It is worth remembering that our membership of the European Union was vetoed twice by France, because that is the way the process works. It is not a quick process. Those of us who are passionate about our relationship with Europe and what is possible—I stand here as chair of the Labour movement for Europe—hold our constituents in our hearts, and they need us to do what we can in the next 18 months, or else the damage that Brexit has done to the country will be so irreparable that there will be little left to negotiate.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for all that my hon. Friend has done on this issue. Does she agree that it would be really helpful now, nine years on, to have a comprehensive impact assessment? In 2016, we talked about the projected harm that Brexit would cause. Now that we have the evidence, should Government prepare an assessment, so that we can make sound judgments on the basis of that?

[Ms Creasy]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but it is so plain to see how we have cut ourselves off. Even in the pandemic, and initially standing up to Putin in Ukraine, we were outside the room shouting in. We owe it to our constituents now to be as brutal as we can be and humble as we need to be to make the case for what we can do in the next 18 months.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I just want to say a little more on that, because I am supremely conscious of time. The previous Administration chose to walk us out of any foreign affairs co-operation. That includes not just hard power, but soft power. For us in the Labour movement for Europe, it is an utter priority to secure a defence and security co-operation agreement, and to include aid in that conversation. Europe is the third largest donor around the world. Whatever one thinks of the cuts to the aid budget, duplication is a problem, but so too is separation, when looking at how we can stand up to threats we face around the world.

We absolutely must join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, as my colleagues have pointed out. These times call for moving on from talk of red lines to talk of mutual benefit. With the uncertainty and inconsistency of whoever is in the White House, our constituents need us to remember a simple truth about Brexit: we can fight many things in life, but we cannot fight geography. Trade with our neighbours is always going to be critical to the future economy, so we must do what we can to reduce the trade barriers.

Some of us were into the youth mobility scheme before it was fashionable; and some of us, over a year ago, were arguing for it. We consider that it is absolutely in the interests of the British public to get one. We do not believe what came back last summer was the right deal for this country, but we should absolutely be looking at what is possible. In that conversation, we must prioritise our apprenticeships. I am old enough to remember when this country used to celebrate, as part of our national cultural life, young men from the north-east going to Germany to upskill and train. That programme was called “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet”, and I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was a regular viewer. That was absolutely youth mobility at the time.

Our young people in this country did not vote for this situation, and they should not bear the brunt of it. They need us to fight for every opportunity that can come for them. A youth mobility deal—not freedom of movement, because we can control how people come here—which we already have with other countries, is in their interest if it is not just about students. Let us talk about every young person.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am a former Erasmus exchange student and have personal lived experience of the immense opportunities that youth mobility provides. Does my hon. Friend recognise not only that it would create significant opportunities for British students abroad, as well as for European students potentially coming to the UK, but that it would not fundamentally rub up against the red lines in the Labour manifesto last year? Youth mobility does not provide a pathway to citizenship, it is not freedom of movement and it does not provide for financial dependency on the state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all fronts. A youth mobility or opportunity scheme with apprenticeships at its heart is the right thing to do, and crucially—in the timeline I have set out for the salvation of this country and for salvaging something from the damage Brexit has done—it could be achieved within an 18-month window. One final item to add to the list of things we could do in 18 months is about our energy security, in particular the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. For many of us, for our vital industries and for defence, including steel, it is absolutely critical that we get our CBAM and emissions trading schemes aligned.

Aneurin Bevan told us that

“The language of priorities is the religion of socialism.”

I stand here, ruthlessly prioritising the British interest, which was always about being stronger and taller on the world stage, and being confident that we could work with other countries. Never more have we needed that spirit, but never more have we needed to be clear about what needs to be done and when. I recognise the passion behind this petition; I simply say to those petitioning: let us not fall into the Brexiteers’ trap of offering false hope, when the people in this country need real change, real relationships and real solutions. The hon. Member for Clacton may not be here, but his spirit infuses our debate if we do otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

Let me give the hon. Member and others some rather uncomfortable facts. I am delighted to tell those Euro-fanatics who gather in this hallowed hall today that only 50 of my constituents in North Antrim signed this petition. Of course that is for very good reason, because unlike the rest of you, we have continued to have to live under the EU. We have continued to be subject to the bureaucratic stranglehold of the EU single market and its customs code. What has that meant? It has meant that in over 300 areas of law we in Northern Ireland are governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament in which we have no say. That is the product of the denial of Brexit to the people of Northern Ireland. That is how we have been left. Those are the laws that govern the single market.

I hear the moving desire of hon. Members to be back in the single market, but let me tell them what that has meant for Northern Ireland: we were told that it was the best of both worlds and a panacea, and if only we all had the best of both worlds. Well, having the best of both worlds and being able to sell into the mighty market of the EU was supposed to bring a flood of foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. According to some enthusiasts, we were going to be the Singapore of the west, but the reality is that there has not been one foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland because of single market access.

Before people get what they wish for, I caution them that being in the single market is no panacea. As I have already illustrated, in Northern Ireland it comes at the price of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Everyone here seems to want to put the whole United Kingdom in that position. I have heard hon. Members lament American tariffs, but they want to put themselves in the club that will be most tariffed by the United States. Where is the logic in that? It really is beyond belief.

The real lesson from Northern Ireland is that the growth in our economy has come in the services sector, which is the sector that is outside EU control. Of the two sectors—manufacturing and services—the sector that has grown is the one outside EU control. The one that is still under the EU’s control is the one that has struggled and has not grown. That is a telling reminder of what it means for people to subjugate themselves in a subservient way to rules made in a foreign Parliament.

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. and learned Member is right that many of us feel desperately sad about the position that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. However, I hate to tell him that because of the value of the Good Friday agreement, the services sector is included in the Northern Ireland protocol.

The hon. and learned Gentleman made much stir of the 50 people from his constituency who deigned to sign the petition, dismissing those who might be supportive of having a relationship with the European Union. What does he say to the 693,525 voters in Northern Ireland—the majority of voters in Northern Ireland—who voted to remain? There are many issues of contention thrown around in this debate, but if he wants to talk numbers, those numbers matter.

[Jim Allister]

Two things: the hon. Member is wrong that services fall under the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. They are not. They are free from it, so she is simply wrong about that. On the question of Northern Ireland voting in favour of remaining, so what? [Laughter.] That was not the question on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

As Members titter and congratulate each other, they might as well say, “Well didn’t London vote to remain?” So what? It was a national vote; it was not about how the regions voted, because the question on my ballot paper, as on yours Sir John, was did I want the United Kingdom to leave or to stay—that was the question. My only regret is that in my part of the United Kingdom, we were not delivered the Brexit that was voted for.

Ukraine

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am really pleased that the announcement that we made over the weekend was for jobs in Belfast; that is hugely important. That is the model that we should follow. As we ramp up defence spending and capability, we should be looking at it predominantly supporting UK jobs and the UK economy. The secure, skilled jobs that go with that should be in our economy, because economic security is important in the UK, just as defence and security is important.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join those thanking the Prime Minister for setting out how clearly the safety of the world and the future of Ukraine relies on this moment. I for one am saddened that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is no longer in his place, because he might have learned a thing or two. His previous advice to Prime Ministers was that when President Macron was elected, he would loathe us and be anti-British—how out of depth and out of touch with the British national interest that advice is. Given the coalition that the Prime Minister is building, and the concern of all of us about using resources effectively, will he please tell us a little more about what conversations he has had with our European allies on how we can reduce the duplication of effort involved in the plans going forward?

[The Prime Minister]

I do think it is important that we work with our European allies, whether on ramping up spending or on capability, but the point my hon. Friend made about co-ordination is also important. We have to learn the lessons of the last three years. Many European allies and others have provided capability to Ukraine, but it has not been co-ordinated enough. Our collective security and defence, to my mind, requires that we co-ordinate our efforts much more closely as well.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

It is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister has had a couple of warm exchanges with the incoming President-elect of the United States, which I think is entirely right and appropriate. We now have a new UK ambassador, and I pay due tribute to the work of Karen Pierce, his predecessor, who did an exemplary job on behalf of the United Kingdom during the period of transition. It remains an indisputable fact, however, that Howard Lutnick is not yet in office as the US Commerce Secretary, and that Jamieson Greer is not in place as the US trade representative. Those are the individuals through whom these dialogues are normally conducted.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I echo Labour Members’ support for steel as a nationally important infrastructure industry that we must protect in this country. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee—who is no longer in the Chamber—I also agree that we must try to avoid escalation. Part of that is about our relationship with Europe, which is our largest market for exported steel after America, so can the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with his European counterparts? This issue of CBAM is absolutely critical to the British steel industry, which is on its knees after 15 years of a Conservative Government who failed to see its value. Will he also reassure us that the resolution of the emissions trading scheme is still on the agenda for the May talks with Europe?

[Mr Alexander]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working on that EU reset, and continue to work on it, through the good offices of my new colleagues in the Cabinet Office. One element of that reset is looking at those linkages and how they can work effectively, and the level of engagement in relation to that reset is significantly ramping up. Again, frankly, there had to be almost confidence-building measures established after the deep betrayal of trust that was felt by our European friends, neighbours and allies—let us remember that a previous Conservative Prime Minister could not even bring herself to acknowledge President Macron as a friend and ally of the United Kingdom. In that sense, we have built the relationships, we have established trust, and we are looking forward with a clear-headed sense of national interest to the reset talks that are getting under way this year.

UK-EU Relations

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful as always for the contribution of the hon. Lady; we had a fine debate in Westminster Hall last week. All I would say to her about speed, though, is that this Government are acting on the red lines in our manifesto around the single market, customs union and freedom of movement, on which we were elected and which delivered this majority last July. I looked at the Liberal Democrats manifesto and its plans for the relationship with the European Union, and it contained four steps. If we were choosing to do this in four different phases, we would be moving a lot more slowly than we are at the moment, so I hope the hon. Lady will welcome the progress we are making.

I know there is a lot of speculation on the issue of youth mobility. Of course, we consider sensible proposals in accordance with our red lines, but our position remains the same: there are no plans for a youth mobility scheme, and we have been clear that there will be no return to freedom of movement.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I guess I should not be surprised to hear the Conservatives trying to defend an impossibly bad deal for British business, which is why I am so relieved that the grown-ups are going to Europe and working out what is in the national interest. May I press the Minister on something that it is very clearly in the national interest to resolve with our European partners? National Grid estimates that it will cost the UK Exchequer £5 billion to £8 billion over this Parliament to have a differential emissions trading scheme between us and Europe. Pollution does not respect borders, and we all want to tackle the climate crisis. Can he confirm that resolving the issues around the carbon border adjustment mechanism will be on the agenda for the summit in May?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned on this issue. Energy is very much a priority for the discussions—specifically the emissions trading scheme and linkage. The existing trade and co-operation agreement commits the UK and the EU to considering that.

Youth Mobility Scheme: EU

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very nice words. I totally understand the issues around the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland; all I would say is that instituting a youth mobility scheme would go a long way to improving relations with the EU, and I think it would unlock some of the other issues we are experiencing.

We already have youth mobility schemes in place with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, so why not with EU countries? It would once again allow young people across the UK to be able to spend time with our nearest neighbours without having to navigate Brexit red tape. A youth mobility scheme with the EU would open up opportunities for British young people to learn new skills, languages and cultures and bring all that back with them to benefit our economy and our society.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ interest in youth mobility. Those of us who bought their first album recognise that one of the challenges here is to get the right deal for British workers. Does the hon. Lady agree that the deal that was offered last year, which would have seen British workers being able to go to only one country under the scheme, was not the right one for this country and that, if we are to have a youth mobility scheme, we need to renegotiate what is being offered?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although I am not sure what she means by the first album. We are talking about a comprehensive agreement. The EU has already indicated that it would be willing to discuss, and of course we should not enter agreements that are not to our advantage.

As the Government know, a youth mobility scheme would not lead to a return to freedom of movement. After all, under the terms of the existing scheme, youth mobility visas are limited in duration and the number of eligible young people is capped. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power, which was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. The scheme that the Liberal Democrats propose is familiar and tried and tested; it allows those aged 18 to 30 to live, work and study in the countries involved for a set period.

The advantages of a youth mobility scheme go far beyond the extension to a new generation of young people of the opportunities that many of us took for granted in our own youth. The wholly inadequate deal with the EU negotiated by the previous Conservative Government has done enormous damage to British businesses. We have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages and reams of red tape, which have created huge barriers to growth. Exports by small businesses have dropped by 30%, and 20,000 small firms across the UK have stopped all exports to the EU. The UK faces acute labour shortages in sectors such as hospitality, the arts, entertainment and retail—exactly the kinds of jobs that young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will just say, first, that when the hon. Lady talks about a “comprehensive programme of engagement”, that is precisely what the Government have been engaging in.

The hon. Lady is certainly right to observe that of course world circumstances change, and I am sure that that will be the case in the years ahead as well. However, what will not change is the Government’s prioritisation of deepening our trade links with the European Union. It is also really important to say that that is of mutual benefit—it is of benefit to the United Kingdom and it is of benefit to the European Union that we move forward together on this agenda. That is precisely what will happen over the next few months.

[Ms Creasy]

I know more than most how much work my right hon. Friend has been doing on this issue. As for rejoining the pan-European scheme, it already exists; it is not a bespoke scheme. On youth mobility, it would be very helpful for us to understand things from the Minister’s perspective, because there are a lot of issues to balance in the best interests of the British economy and British growth. May I bring him back to that point? When there are so many challenges in the world, it is wonderful to have UK leaders in Europe who do not question whether we are friend or foe to our colleagues there, but we also need to speak up for British interests. I hope he can set out a bit more about what he considers those to be.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. It was a particularly low moment for the country when one of its Prime Ministers could not answer a question as to whether the French President was a friend or foe. France is our NATO ally, with huge and deep ties to us. The fact that we ever reached that point was, frankly, disgraceful. However, we are not in that position any more. We are very clear with our European friends and partners that our relationship with them is constructive and positive, and that we will make it even closer in the years ahead. That is hugely important. My hon. Friend also makes a really powerful point about national interests, because our national interests and those of European economies go hand in hand. This process is not some sort of zero-sum game. It is a negotiation—a set of discussions—from which both sides can mutually benefit.

Let us take, for example, an SPS agreement, as seeking negotiations on that is one of our specific manifesto pledges. It works for and reduced barriers on both sides. That is good for businesses and the agricultural sector on the European continent, and it is good for the agricultural sector here in Britain. Cultural exchanges are also good for both sides, as is mutual recognition of professional qualifications in services. That is not just about our brilliant services exports; it is about those services that we can get from the European Union.

I am conscious, Sir Jeremy, that this is a short Westminster Hall debate and we are coming to the last few moments. People-to-people contacts are hugely important; there is no doubt about that. Obviously, the previous Government eased the position regarding school trips, particularly with France. We have just indicated our reinvestment in the Turing scheme. There are also numerous deep people-to-people links with Europe right across the United Kingdom.

As we have had this exchange across the Chamber many times, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that youth mobility was not part of the plans that the Government set out at the election. We have said that we will not go back to freedom of movement; that is a very clear red line. However, I approach the negotiations with the European Union in a constructive spirit. I, of course, will put forward and advocate for our national interests. It is, of course, for the EU to come forward with its negotiating position.

Who knows whether points in the Financial Times on this matter are accurate or not? They may or may not be, but I look forward to these negotiations. This is going to be a really positive period in relationships between the UK and the EU, and I am sure we can come back with the deliverables that are being asked for by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

Finally, I am very grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, for your chairmanship of this debate.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, that is very important. When spending any time with the families, you get a real sense of the agony they are going through, which is made even worse by the fact that they do not have any meaningful information about their loved ones. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: that is an essential step to at least reduce some of the agony.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

We in my constituency stand today with our neighbour Sharone in saying the name of her father, Oded Lifschitz, a proud peace activist who has been held by Hamas for over a year now. We stand with our Palestinian neighbours who were able to escape from Gaza, who now fear for their relatives and what harm may befall them. We stand with our neighbour trying to get out of Lebanon, where he was trying to support local children to learn. We reject the lazy stereotype in this conflict that we have to pick a side. We pick peace, and we simply ask the Prime Minister to do and show the same, so what reassurance can my right hon. and learned Friend give me and my constituents today that everything that the British have—in fighting for the rule of law, in diplomacy, and even in our work on arms sales—will be dedicated towards peace and resolution for the innocent civilians in these regions?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is a reminder of the impact that the conflict is having on so many of our communities here in the United Kingdom. We are absolutely working with our allies on de-escalating across the region. That requires Iran to take responsibility and be held accountable for what it is doing, which is why in my view, it is important for the G7 to speak so powerfully together with a co-ordinated and collaborative approach.